By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
"In God we trust. All others must use data. If there us a credo for statiticians, it is that. Decisions need to be based as much as possible on accurate and timely data, not on the wishes and the hunches or experience of others. Views not backed by data are more opinions, likely to include personal, exaggerations, and misstaken impresions. Proper data collection can then be used to help understand a process and bring it under control, so that it can be improved. Otherwise, organizations can do nothing more then put out fires and never improve the situation. This is the single greatest reason why an organization, either business or government will fail." - Edward Deming
"
We have already established laws don't work. To wit: murder, incest, DUI..did the laws stop any of these behaviors cold? There is no expectation that cell phone bans for teens work either. Maybe we should give up the ghost, repeal all laws and let the saying: "MIght makes right" be the mantra of our society. After all if no laws work, whether they are moral or civil, why keep them on the books?
Unfortunately since common sense can't be legislated, laws must be put into place to control those without any.
Hehehehehe, but you just said in the paragraph before that they don't work, they don't exercise that control:
"We have already established laws don't work. To wit: murder, incest, DUI..did the laws stop any of these behaviors cold?"
I am most amused that this little thread has survived all this time. We are now about 4-1/2 short months from the law I was referring to going into effect. With a $20 penalty for non-compliance and the police busy with a GREAT MANY more important things, I don't think behaviors will change one whit. But I might go out and check out one of these newfangled Bluetooth-thingamjigs boaz keeps mentioning. ;-)
Did I mention I know a number of people (especially co-workers and their kids) who text while driving? Since this wasn't specifically prohibited by the new law, some of them are going to go to that mode exclusively after July 1, so as not to risk getting a ticket.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am not sure how to take this....is this tongue in cheek, or are you serious? What do you mean by "work"? Having Zero Tollerance as a goal of any process is unrealistic and a waste of time to try and leads to more bad decisions.
This does not mean that a process change (law) does not work? Something can be entirely in control even if it appears that it is not.
You can neither make a claim that a law "works" or not "works" w/o understanding the pocess, not just looking at an outcome.
Some of the preceding was tongue in cheek.
Usage of hand held devices is a problem. There was a crash here a while back with fatalities (as in multiple). As in other cases it was difficult to prove the driver was texting, because there were no witnesses, but it is widely believed the driver was not focusing on the road. Anyone who believes these laws are just nuisance laws are really out of touch with worst case scenarios.
As such, additional legistlation should be pending to address this issue. But the law in general should be expanded to any usage of portable electronic devices. Texting should be double the fines and points as well.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The goal of any process is either 100% or 0%, you don't design a law or process to be 25% effective, you design it to be effective. I'm sure the last contractor that worked on your house, didn't say: "This job is 50% guaranteed".
You can neither make a claim that a law "works" or not "works" w/o understanding the pocess, not just looking at an outcome.
Exactly. And I believe one can make a law based on reasonableness and common sense to wit, portable electronic device legistlation.
Would it have been possible to let the call go to voice mail? And then, find a safe and legal spot to park and then call back and conduct "business"? What professions, perhaps except for some medical and law enforcement, have to talk while driving because their involvement could be matter of life and death for someone?
Attended one of his 3-4 day management training seminars about 20 years ago. Waited in line and got his autograph on "Out of The Crisis" book.
Just like many pundits pose question of what Jesus would do today, what would Deming (if he were alive) say about drivers talking on cell phones?
The overall process is "driving". What kinds of actvities that are done by drivers improve that process, what kinds of activities diminish that process?
Would you accept "data" from tests showing that drivers impair their driving abilities and reaction times when they conduct cell phone conversations?
That's a little more draconian than my view but I can see where someone who's constantly having to put up with rude and inconsiderate cell phone users would be in favor of that. Hands-free in public places is even worse than a hand-held in my opinion. Who hasn't had some stranger next to them ask a question and start to respond only to discover that the other person is using a Bluetooth? And then you get a look like you're the one who is weird!
-Frank
I am sure I could have let it go to voice mail but then why have a cell phone in the first place? I have a blue tooth and it is hands free so it was legal. I managed to stop for every stop light. Turn into the proper lanes. Merge with the construction cones and avoid the people cutting everyone off trying to get to the light first. I believe I was driving much better than the Young man with the lowered Accord that almost side swiped the construction worker, not using a cell by the way.
After hanging up on the call and doing some shopping I even managed to have a long conversation in the car with my wife while driving home explaining what the agent had been talking to me about. I guess I could have asked her to wait till we got home but I didn't. I did get a cup of Starbucks on the way home so I will admit there were times where I was talking to my wife and sipping coffee and driving with one hand. But still I managed to make it home safely.
You obviously have no idea what I am talking about and don't get it. You rationale is exactly the reason why the Japanese have been killing us. You are confusng areas and it is apparent that you have no experience in process improvement management or design.
BTW, saying that a job is 100% guarenteed is not the same thing as saying zero compliance.....the two are not even related.
The overall process is not driving...and there is lies the crux of the arugument. The overall process is:
1 - Delivering product
2 - Traveling to see a customer to help them solve a problem.
3 - Staying in business
4 - Allowing your kids and family to eat
5 - Getting medical treatment for someone
5 - and the list goes on....
Data that indicates reaction times are slowed, does not mean that an accident will result, nor that there is any real link, or that the risk is not even acceptible as it may come at a smaller price then the ensuing bennefit.
Disagree. The overall process could be called "Operating a Motor Vehicle on Public Roads" of which there are numerous sub-processes. And, driver talking on a cell phone is not a sub-process. It is a distraction. A dangerous one that impairs the driver's reaction times and detracts from another sub-process, defensive driving.
water:
1 - Delivering product
2 - Traveling to see a customer to help them solve a problem.
3 - Staying in business
4 - Allowing your kids and family to eat
5 - Getting medical treatment for someone
5 - and the list goes on....
x:
Fine to use motor vehicle to "help" accomplish these ends. But, have nothing to do with actual operation of motor vehicle on highway.
water:
Data that indicates reaction times are slowed, does not mean that an accident will result, nor that there is any real link, or that the risk is not even acceptible as it may come at a smaller price then the ensuing bennefit.
x:
The risk may be acceptable to you, but not to me. I do not want your acceptable risk, either for me or any of my family when we are driving. I want you and others who use cell to have “full” capabilities at the ready, and that means no cell phone.
I am getting nothing but "risk" from you without any benefits to me.
Actually I'm not sure you comprehend what I am saying. Having worked in a factory designing manufacturing systems I know all about manufacturing processes. When I design systems, I design them for zero defects. Do you know why Lexus vehicles are reliable, they design their manufacturing process for zero defects. Do they hit zero. No. Do I hit zero. No. But I sure as hell don't design them with a 50% goal, ie having 50% of the system working. Maybe the lack of attention to detail is the reason the Japanese are killing us?
What about designing medical care with a 50% tolerance level?
Maybe you would like to rewind the tape on this one?
One problem with Zero Defects is that it might mean paying for a level of quality conformance that is not worth the effort and that it is in fact, not really possible. It also means that you ignore the fact that a process can be improved further. Additional, it promotes additional inspection costs that are meaningless when in fact, a process is already under control. This adds undue delays and production costs.
Let's say there were a complete ban on cell phones in cars as you wish to have. What if the law was perfect in the sense that no one used a phone anymore. So, it achieved zero defects. What would you say if congestion rose 20% and accidents increased as a result? Have any idea how many trips have been avoided becuase of cell phones? This is why we can't go off half-cocked and make laws based on observation and opinions.
BTW, the Japanese have lost a lot of ground in quality the past years to the US manufacturers because they have forgotten some of the lessons.
For most people driving is not the primary reason they are in a vehicle. They are going to or coming from a place of business. Everyone thinking about what they are going to is not paying total attention to driving there. The very fact that we drive some place to conduct business or even to purchase something indicates we are willing to take some risk and determine that the risk we are taking is minimal. There are very few hard goods you couldn't buy online or from a catalog. If you did that you could avoid the risk of driving all together. If you insisted that all of your passengers stayed quiet while the vehicle was in motion you could avoid that distraction as well.
Every day we make a decission on what is an acceptable risk and we are forced to live with those decisions even when we are wrong. Driving is a tool to help us do important things for our survival in society. Phones have been a valuable tool in doing business and keeping in contact for many years. They can save us from driving to an appointment that was cancelled at the last minute and reduce the number of hours we spend on the highway every day.
-Frank
Is it safe to eat while driving? Maybe try to wolf down a large Carl's messy burger and fries while on our way to work? Do we realize how it effects our ability to drive? Remember the old AAA study said that was a major distraction and yet it doesn't get its own law? Yet we decide the risk is worth it.
Most of us realize that there are times when driving doesn't require 100 percent of your attention. Out on the interstate in light traffic is one example. Shouldn't this be an exception? Driving on a country road with no traffic for miles. Shouldn't this be an exception? We have already decided that an emergency call is an exception. We have also decided that hands free units are an exception. maybe we are a generation that can't adapt to this technology. I have seen kids get a much higher score on a road racing video game than me and do it while listening to their Ipod and singing while playing the game.
Think of all the things you do yourself when driving that you couldn't do if you were racing in a car at Road Atlanta. Does that mean we should pass a law keeping you from doing those things forever? Not likely. Even the FARS rate has dropped from 1.8 in 1994 to 1.4 in 2006 and that happened when phones were increasing faster than you can name the companies selling them. People may be more distracted but they aren't killing each other off because of it.
1. There is a preponderonce of evidence regarding cognitive abilities while conversing.
2. There should be laws regarding cell phone usage, but I do not believe they should be draconian.
3. Your conjecture regarding congestion is just that, conjecture.
3. The Japanese have not lost anything in quality to the US. The US is playing catch up.
Yes, me.
Is it safe to eat while driving?
It depends. Think of an analogy landing a plane below 10,000 feet. If your driving in the desert it might be safe. The 405 at rush hour is below 10,000 feet.
Maybe try to wolf down a large Carl's messy burger and fries while on our way to work?
Is it safe to let go of the wheel, open the sunroof, unbuckle your seatbelt, stand up and drink a beer? Sure you can invent any situation and then say there should be a law. But I can't remember the last time I saw someone wolfing down a Carls messy burger and fries with a coke. Yes, it is empirical evidence that counts.
Out on the interstate in light traffic is one example
And I wonder why I see cars in the ditch in sunny dry conditions on lightly travelled roads.
Shouldn't this be an exception?
Should you be allowed to run a stop sign on an empty road?
Even the FARS rate has dropped from 1.8 in 1994 to 1.4 in 2006 and that happened when phones were increasing faster than you can name the companies selling them.
I have an in whereby my confidant has shown me documents which prove that last year 50% of car crashes were due to cell phone usage. Can you prove me wrong? If you can prove me wrong, which means you know the real number, you can cite all the FARS statistics you want without their veracity being questioned.
1. There is a preponderonce of evidence regarding cognitive abilities while conversing.
2. There should be laws regarding cell phone usage, but I do not believe they should be draconian.
3. Your conjecture regarding congestion is just that, conjecture.
3. The Japanese have not lost anything in quality to the US. The US is playing catch up.
There are obviously more gurus out there then Deming and he is certainly not God. I am a certified Black Belt at LSS...who knows what will be around the next corner. Mr. Deming certainly laid the ground work for a lot of thinking and most quality improvement principles stem from what he started.
1 - Agreed. I won't argue with you there. But, you can't garner conversation on the phone or otherwise....it is just not possible to control. So is listening to the radio.
3 - Absolutely, my point was conjecture, but that was the idea of my argument. I don't have proof of this, but what trying to show that we need to understand how a process is tied together before leaping to conclusions. It would be sad to make a change only to make things worse, would it not?
4 - Think about it, if the Americans are catching up, it is BOTH because we are getting better and because the Japanese are not getting better fast enough. It was either Toyota or Honda, I beleive, that had the largest recall in history just a few years ago. Bravo to them for correcting the problem....bad on them for allowing the problem to take place in the first place.
As far as Demining almost being side-swiped by a car....he would have never let his personal observations sway a decison to change a process. To imply so, means a lack of understanding of his principles.
Just today, I had a guy in a silver BMW cut me off. As far as I could tell, there was no phone involved. Therefore, I should conclude that guys who drive silver BMW's are dangerous and should therefore be prevented from driving.
Certainly there are times when less attention is required than others. Heck when traveling cross-country, talking on the phone might make you safer if it keeps you awake. On the other hand, driving on an 8-lane expressway going 70 mph in thick rush hour traffic and talking on the phone is an accident waiting to happen. The problem as I see it is that far too many drivers lack the common sense to discern when is an okay time to be chatting on the phone.
Of course the problem is compounded by the fact that many drivers (and some posters here) are blissfully unaware that talking on the phone impairs their driving skills.
We have also decided that hands free units are an exception.
No Kemo Sabe, "we" haven't decided any such thing. I may currently be in the minority but I’m convinced that hands-free devices are no safer to use than hand-held phones.
Existing hand-held cell phones laws are at best a waste of time and probably do more harm than no law at all since they give the false impression that talking on a hands-free device is safer.
I've mentioned it before but I think the biggest step in making the roads safer for everyone would be a public education campaign about the dangers of talking and driving.
-Frank
Illinios, like many localities, have tried to use speed enforcement cameras to stop speeding. These cameras take photos of violators and send tickets.
In Illinois, they decided to use these cameras in constructions zones under the belief that they are special "pain-points". Officials in Illinois suggested the "work zone" freeway speed camera programs were intended to protect construction workers. However, evidence shows that only 15 percent of freeway construction zone injuries are caused by automobiles. A far greater number of workers are injured by construction equipment.
However, what happened was that these very same freeway cameras documented a 54 percent increase in rear-end collisions and a 9 percent increase in injuries from rear-end collisions as motorists slammed on their brakes approaching the devices.
I freely admit there are too many driving accidents. We do know that a greater number are caused by teen age drivers and speed and alcohol than any other single thing. We also know that the NHTSA has posted the Fatal Accident Rate as the lowest per miles driven in over ten years. We must be doing something right. I dare say we have to realize that in car communication will be with us for quite a few years. Companies like On Star and some others depend on it and they too pay taxes. I also realize that because of forums like this I may pay even more attention to my surroundings when I am on the phone than I do when I am not. I have just never cared for laws that are aimed at the lowest common denominator.
And I apologize for saying we have decided hands free is an exception. I should have said the law makers have decided that hands free is an exception. As well as 911 calls and medical emergencies.
While a bit off-topic, just am example of how phones are creeping more and more into our lives. (not sure if this is a good idea or not).
This is a whole other matter relating to the disregard for rule of law by some drivers thinking that they have a "right" to go whatever speed they want in a "45" construction zone. Those that try to obey 45 risk geting rear-ended.
Perhaps many of the injuries to workers in work zones on interstates caused by drivers are severe or fatal. Injuries by construction workers not caused by drivers may range from very minor to critical. Need to see the "data" and drill down on the types of injuries overall and causes.
Wonder how many drivers on cell phones conducting business can modulate and move down their speed to 45 if they are distracted by business details.
That would be good. Who would do though? Can already see some videos for TV showing how drivers on a cell phone weave around, hold up traffic on the roads. Another video could show simulated tests on a closed driving course of drivers on cell phones knocking down cones, unable to maneuver around an obstacle that appears and run into it, etc. Videos would show alternatives to driving and talking on cell such as better planning and time management, stopping in a safe and legal place to make a call, etc.
Doubt that Cell phone service providers would volunteer to do the campaign.
Those having transponder accounts to use Illinois Tollway system are debited each time they pass through a toll area. Lots of details are recorded at each toll point including time-of-day and toll station and lane number and toll dollar amount. Would be very simple to put software in place to compute average speed over segments between toll stations and then access additional user fees to the account for instances of speeding. This would be a good way for State of Illlinois to bring in extra revenue which is sorely needed. Some threshhold amount over posted speed limit would trigger a fine and points on drivers license. Perhaps if just 5-10 over, then just a user fee for priviledge of going faster than posted.
I was just intending to lurk here for a few minutes, but I just HAVE to call you out on this. Do you seriously believe there is no-one that eats fast food in their car, or even that it is a rare occurrence? C'mon, no way!
This is one of the five most common distractions of drivers, according to one of the linked studies in this thread from way back when it first started. What's even worse is the fastidious drivers who want to eat the Carl's messy burger but don't want to get anything on their precious upholstery. So they are constantly looking away from the road for extended periods to prevent drips.
Of course, the fast food industry has a HELL of a lot more money and clout to fight legislation banning eating in cars (there goes most of your drive-thru business, the most profitable part of the fast food business) than the telecom industry does to ban regulations against cell phone use. So everybody loses.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If faced with the possibility of a total ban on cell phone use while driving then I suspect they'd come around. I can envision something similiar to the beer industry and their "drink repsonsibly" public service ads.
-Frank
I never said no one eats, what I said if one looks at what is happening on the road cell phone usage is most common driver attention diverter. Just have to look around in rush hour traffic on urban and suburban roads.
The question was asked. "But do you know anyone that pays total attention while driving? "
Your answer: "Yes, me." That calls for a toss of the BS flag.
The next question was: Is it safe to eat while driving?
Your answer was prefaced but ended with: "But I can't remember the last time I saw someone wolfing down a Carl's messy burger and fries with a coke. Yes, it is empirical evidence that counts."
You simply can't be looking or there are no Micky Ds in your area.
The most amazing one was your total disregard of the NTHSA FARS study showing it lower than before cell phones. I may not know why but it is clearly a sign the roads are safer today than they were in 1994 with or without cell phones.
You think you are capable of making a judgement call like that about me, when you don't know me?
You simply can't be looking or there are no Micky Ds in your area.
The question was in response to Carls not Mickey Ds'
The most amazing one was your total disregard of the NTHSA FARS study showing it lower than before cell phones.
You simply do not have enough of an understanding about the data to be able to make any correlation without assuming.
You know what else we didn't have in widespread use in 1994? Airbags, crumple zones, ABS, and many other types of passenger safety and accident avoidance equipment.
So are the roads safer or is the fact that today's cars are much better designed to protect the vehicle occupants that has lead to the drop in fatalities?
-Frank
I am getting nothing but "risk" from you without any benefits to me.
You my friend are confused....every, single time you get in a car to do ANYTHING, you take risk. BUT, you do it anyway, because of the benefit. You just made my point in your statement.....thank you.
When you decide to go for a joy ride, or take your kids to school, by virtue of being in the car you are taking risk to you and to me just by being on the road even if you ate 100% dedicated to driving.
No sir he didn't and he is spot on. Driving a car doesn't mean one has to absorb your definition of acceptable risk. Driving books, drivers ed, defensive driving courses all make the same point, drivers have to focus on the road.
Pundits against this legislation argue changing the radio station is akin to a 30 minute phone conversation. A thinking person doesn't buy that load of bunk. If the driver is not focusing on the road, he/she isn't doing his job. The ability to focus while on the phone is greatly diminished borne out by a plethora of studies all with varying results, all making the same basic conclusions.
There is not one study that comes to the conclusion phone conversations do not divert drivers attention. There do not have to be draconian laws, and I fully admit going 15 mph in an empty parking lot after hours is a whole lot different than the 405 at rush hour, But when you have neighboors on the road one should be driving defensively, which is virtually impossible using the phone to call or text.
One can spin this till the cows come home, but if common sense doesn't prevail, than laws should and must.
Yes, right, I take measured risk. I minimize my risks by always being rested and alert, not on any medication causing drowsiness, car is in excellent operating condition, windows are clean, etc, and I do not use cell phone while I am driving.
I also minimize my risks by practicing defensive driving which includes watching for other drivers' actions, especially those that have a phone to their ear. I could be inconsiderate and dangerous and call friends/relatives or conduct business while driving, but I am too responsible for that. I know how to plan my time and make/take my calls whether from home, office, parked car. Somehow I am able to manage all this, and, you know, I don't wear a black belt.
However, cell phones will never go away and they most certainly will never be banned in cars. As long as they are legal to use, I will use them with my own discretion....I really have no other choice anyway. I spend about 2,000 to 3,000 minutes a month on my phone, which is about 50% less then what I used to use when I was traveling more.
I think part of the issue is that some people obviously use a phone w/o any consideration for others. I think we have all been victims or this, and maybe even been guilty.
I do think that phones are a discraction, but so are a lot of other activities and it is really never possible to know all the factors that contribute to an accident. Was it the phone? Was it the radio? Was it the tires? The brakes? Inexperience? They all add up.
I also think that while some pople point to those that use cell phones as acting with total disregard, I will also point that many of these people must also have very simple lives.....good for them.
While they claim that those that use phones take undue risk to them, they also forget that many of these people are the same people that keep their lives going. These are the doctors that return calls when their kids are sick, their mortgage brokers or agents that answer a call when they are ready to buy a house, or the many special talents of the hard-working people that keep all kinds of functions working because they are accesible, because they have to be. It might be nice to be able to drive to work, do your job, leave your work at the door, and come home, but many of us can not and the rest of the world needs us.
My profession is to work with major production facilities (mainly food and beverage plants) to reduce water and energy consumption and to elimate plant discharge problems. These facilities that I/we support are all over the US and run 24/7. I specialize in facilities that manufacture TPN (IV Nutrition Products), baby formula, dairy products, soft drinks, pharmaceutical, and brewing. I used to drive 6,000 miles per month (thats a lot of hours behind the wheel). Some of my projects have reduced over 100,000,000 gallons of water per year just at one site. Over a 15 year span, the amount of water I have personally helped to save is probably well into the trillions of gallons. I have prevented spills into rivers and streams, and helped to clean them up if they should happen. I just initiated a project this week that will save a customer $600,000 per year in fuel consumption....guarenteed and documeted. I have helped to save jobs by preventing plant closings. I have some clients that now operate zero discharge facilities and when the "crap" hits the fan, we are called into action.
None of this could be done w/o a phone or a computer. For me, being accessible means everything. In fact, in recent years we have been using technology to prevent traveling in the first place.
We can not be afraid of technology. While I might appreciate an Amish life, I can not live that way. However, we do need to keep technology in check.
To think that phones could ever go away or be programmed out of cars, would come at a cost that society could not afford to pay. In fact, phones will continue to become a bigger and bigger part of our lives. What was once a luxury is now a neccesity. Just like electricity once was.....just like cars once were.
Cell phones act as an amazing social class leveling factor. These devices were once only available to the elite, but now cheap phones, and affordable plans, make them available to all classes of society. This not only allows all people to stay in touch, but just like the internet, allows all classes of people to compete on a much more equal basis.
To compaign against cell phones would be like compaigning against being able to acheive the American dream. To legislate phones out of cars, would essentially put business out of business and destroy the ability of many business to provide services efficiently if even at all and prevent those that need these services from getting these services efectively.
Even if you NEVER use a road, you still bennefit from them. And even if you never use a phone, you still benefit from them too.
Phones are a distraction.....but they are a necessity. Laws need to consider the entire situation and people need to use them sparingly and with discretion and with regards to their fellow man.
I believe that is really the crux of the issue. If the use of portable electronic communication devices were used judiciously and with common sense, there really wouldn't be a debate would there>
The issue we as a society is facing is how to keep yourself and fellow motorists safe. That requires common sense and the use of defensive driving practices as a guidance. If this were the case these laws would be unnecessary and I wouldn't have had to practice evasive maneuvers so many times in the last couple of months.
I do know that from reading your posts for all these months that you do not devote total attention to your driving. If you would like I will post the times you have admitted to participating in some of the listed distractions that are supposed to increase your chances of an accident. You assumed a risk you have admitted you wouldn't allow your children to assume while driving.
And while I also realize that cars are safer The NHTSA had also reported the number of total accidents in the late 80s was 6,887,000 reported fatal, non fatal and property damage but by 2005 the total reported accidents recorded by NHTSA was 6,195,000. Even if we had a error in reporting of 200,000 the reported accidents have dropped while cell phones have increased. No amount of air bags or crumple zones can account for that.
But, with all due respect to your articulateness, I don't buy it.
I am president of a real estate development company. My business partner is the former general counsel of the largest hotel company in the world. One of my good friends is a managing partner of a nuclear engineering consulting firm. Collectively, the three of us probably make as good of a case for the need for freedom to use cell phones wherever and whenever necessary as any three business professionals you will find.
However, if I'm in serious negotiations on a multi-million dollar real estate deal, I'm certainly not going to do it while trying to avoid a wreck on the Capital Beltway. If my business partner is trying to negotiate or document a multi-party international hotel development and management agreement, he isn't doing it while driving on the Dulles Toll Road. And my friend isn't driving around town reviewing engineering calculations on the phone with his staff to make sure the next nuclear power plant coming to your neighborhood doesn't overheat and cause you to glow in the dark.
So, frankly, I cannot understand why someone such as yourself, apparantly in a highly technical profession would find it that much more productive to try to conduct that profession on a cell phone while driving.
Admittedly I, my partner and my friend all have hands-free bluetooth systems, and we take (short) calls to confirm appointments or discuss non-critical items. But serious business requires serious focus and you just aren't going to get that while driving. I have taken to hanging up on one particular person who repeatedly called me from the road, only to then call back from his office to ask, "what did we agree to do?".
Maybe I don't understand your profession enough to appreciate what exactly you are accomplishing with 3,000 minutes a month over 6,000 miles per month. But I would submit that "multitasking" has been identified by Jack Welch, Bill Marriott, Warren Buffett and even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as perhaps one of the biggest productivity falacies of our era.
They would contend: Focus is the key to success. And I personally think that both applies to business productivity and getting from point a to point b in the safest possible manner.
In any event, good luck with your job. Sounds interesting.
Let's go for it.
You assumed a risk you have admitted you wouldn't allow your children to assume while driving.
I pay total attention to the road, do you? I can drink a cup of coffee and still pay total attention to driving. I can flip the radio and still pay total attention. Can you talk on the phone and claim you pay total attention to driving? If so, then lets see where the BS flag is.
Even if we had a error in reporting of 200,000 the reported accidents have dropped while cell phones have increased. No amount of air bags or crumple zones can account for that.
It's BS, how do you know, or not, that 50% of the root causes of accidents are due to cell phone usage? You don't, it's an unscientific leap of faith.
As usual a well written post. It didn't take me long in my life to understand that when multi-tasking with tasks requiring 100% of your brain seems, no tasks seem to get done well. Driving is a thinking activity that requires most of the cognotive processing power of your brain to perform properly.
-Frank
No less of a leap of unscientific faith that you to believe 50 percent of the accidents in 1988 were due to cell phones. And of course you discount the fact that the accident rate was higher because? Do you believe that the NHTSA study is unscientific?
Still drinking coffee changing, radio stations, drinking coffee, adjusting the air conditioning and talking to passengers are listed as distractions to driving even in some of the studies you have posted. But they are listed by the DMV and Highway patrol and the AAA study on driving distractions. Both which I have posted for your reading pleasure in earlier posts. You have admitted to to participating to these listed distractions yourself and in post 1632 you mentioned that you forbid your "younger set" from participating in any of these activities. If you did not believe they were a distraction why would you forbid the action when these younger drivers where behind the wheel? If they are a distraction as the studies had suggested how can you totally concentrate on driving while participating in them yourself?